David Laws - corrupt hypocrite?

ash28

nearlynew

tomterm8 wrote: »

Well, because he is no worse than the other lying f*cking thiefs? And he is fairly competant. He is being replaced by someone who (according to you) is a lying f*cking thief but who isn't in my view all that competant.

None of them are "competant".


They are all lying f*cking thieves.

Somerset

Wookster wrote: »

So, he's gone. Can someone actually say what he has done wrong?? What he could have done differently??

Ok, The parliamentary rules have banned MPs from "leasing accommodation from a partner''. That's the alleged offence.

In my naivety, I assume for this exact reason. If my employer requires me to work both in London and from home in Yeovil ....... but my partner already has a home in London, naturally I'd stay with him/her. But how much would my employer be prepared to pay (if at all) towards that? They could contribute nothing, saying it was free to me - or a contribution equivalant to hotel charges - or whatever. If I don't tell my employer I'm staying with my partner and submit (and am paid for) my house-share costs (£950 p.m.) I'd expect them to be angry. Specifically since I knew the rules said I couldn't do this. And how did I arrive at £950 p.m. - it can be any number, since it's not real - it's just plucked out of the air. So the rule is there specifically to avoid an abuse of the housing expense.

That's my reasoning of ''what he's done wrong''.

Soubrette

Somerset wrote: »

Ok, The parliamentary rules have banned MPs from "leasing accommodation from a partner''. That's the alleged offence.

In my naivety, I assume for this exact reason. If my employer requires me to work both in London and from home in Yeovil ....... but my partner already has a home in London, naturally I'd stay with him/her. But how much would my employer be prepared to pay (if at all) towards that? They could contribute nothing, saying it was free to me - or a contribution equivalant to hotel charges - or whatever. If I don't tell my employer I'm staying with my partner and submit (and am paid for) my house-share costs (£900 p.m.) I'd expect them to be angry. Specifically since I knew the rules said I couldn't do this. And how did I arrive at £900 p.m. - it can be any number, since it's not real - it's just plucked out of the air.

That's my reasoning of ''what he's done wrong''.

Although my understanding is that had you declared your partner's house in London as your second home then you could have claimed more than the £900.00pm.

I keep hearing about defrauded the tax payer - from what is being reported today (and I'm prepared to be outraged again if this is not the case) he has fraudulently underclaimed his expenses.

The fraudulent part is why he has had to resign but there is no defrauding involved overall as he has claimed less than he could have, if he had claimed honestly.

However, I have also read that there might be other expenses that he has claimed which are a bit dodgy so I'm still saving my moral outrage just in case

Sou

Somerset

Soubrette wrote: »

Although my understanding is that had you declared your partner's house in London as your second home then you could have claimed more than the £900.00pm.

I've read this from other poster's too, and I'm prepared to believe it if someone can explain it to me.

His partner owned the first place. He contributed an unspecified amount to the bigger second place.

What could he have claimed legitimately if he's been above-board? Genuine question for someone to nail down the 'claimable' amounts/catogories.

Soubrette

Somerset wrote: »

I've read this from other poster's too, and I'm prepared to believe it if someone can explain it to me.

His partner owned the first place. He contributed an unspecified amount to the bigger second place.

What could he have claimed legitimately if he's been above-board? Genuine question for someone to nail down the 'claimable' amounts/catogories.

Unfortunately I read it here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282384/David-Laws-Treasurys-new-axeman-40k-expenses-secret-gay-partner.html

He stressed that Mr Laws had given up a lucrative City career to go into politics, and could have claimed far more in expenses if he had stated openly that he was part of a couple.

Which gives no details of exactly what he could claim as a couple.

Sou

globalds

Wookster wrote: »

So, he's gone. Can someone actually say what he has done wrong?? What he could have done differently??

!!!!!! trhis is pathetic. You all need to get a grip.

Wookster ..This year was the first time I have not voted ...The reason was that I could not trust politicians with my vote.

What he has done wrong is not the expenses issue, with me ..it is the trust issue ...When politicians ask for my vote they ask me to trust them ..If I find out later they have been less than forthcoming with the truth, I feel the same way as I would if someone sold me a car and then failed to tell me something important like it was involved in crash.

Not lying ..But not giving me all the facts I need to make a fair decision.

He is an ex-financier he would have expected every ounce of information to help him to consider his choices ..He has not treated his bosses (us) in the same way.

If he wanted privacy , maybe he should have chosen not to enter politics.

nitr02007

I'll be happy if ALL benefits/allowances are means tested. As someone earlier said why are we paying expenses to multi-millionaires?

Laws obviously didn't need the money but thought it'd be nice to siphon £40k into his lover's hands at the expense of the taxpayer.

Its not about what rules he has broken but the moral position that politicians think they can dip into the tax payer's purse at any time - even when they have no need of the money because they're already stinking rich!!

A._Badger

nitr02007 wrote: »

I'll be happy if ALL benefits/allowances are means tested. As someone earlier said why are we paying expenses to multi-millionaires?

Laws obviously didn't need the money but thought it'd be nice to siphon £40k into his lover's hands at the expense of the taxpayer.

Its not about what rules he has broken but the moral position that politicians think they can dip into the tax payer's purse at any time - even when they have no need of the money because they're already stinking rich!!

Also - and I'd suggest even more importantly - that they dare to lecture, cajole and bully us as they see fit, absolutely certain in their minds that they know best.

Who the hell are these people who pass laws that have us fined, thrown out of our jobs and even imprisoned for extremely minor failures to observe the laws that they made, then feign shock and outrage when someone suggests they abide by the same standards?

Just try the stunt that Laws pulled if you work for a normal employer!

Sometimes, piano wire and lampposts seems like the only rational answer to this parasitical political class.

Kohoutek

A._Badger wrote: »

Sometimes, piano wire and lampposts seems like the only rational answer to this parasitical political class.

That tends to be the history of the downfall of every dominant ruling class in pretty much every case in history. Maybe this one should try harder if they want to be an exception!